Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago, introduced HCR 263 on November 6
("HCR" is "House Concurrent Resolution). It urges the Commission on Presidential
Debates to lower its threshold for participation in presidential debates. It
reads:

"Whereas the private Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) will
require presidential candidates to post a level of support of at least 15% in
national public opinion polls before they may join the debates, a requirement
which is deeply problematic;

"Whereas the CPD places the cart before the horse by basing the exclusion
of outsider candidates on the preferences of a public who has not yet seen or
heard from these candidates in a debate, while at the same time many voters
will still be uncommitted to a single candidate at the time of the debates;

"Whereas the 15% rule is both arbitrary and too high, and there is no basis
in law for the 15% threshold;

"Whereas the American people do not agree with the CPD, as revealed in a
poll which said that a majority of Americans believe that CPD's 15% threshold
is inappropriate;

"Whereas polls often underestimate the role of independents because polling
firms regularly base their opinion surveys on 'likely voters' as determined by
past voting practice, and such determinations ignore the possibility that the
debates may, in fact, create new likely voters;

"Whereas general election debates serve a greater purpose for voters than
merely contrasting the two candidates who stand the best chance of winning the
presidency;

"Whereas general election debates also can provide meaningful political
discourse, advance and crystallize the ideas and issues which are important to
the American public, and force the candidates to address the issues about
which Americans care most deeply;

"Whereas the debates should be an opportunity for voters to see a serious
discussion among the candidates from whom they wish to hear and about issues
they care to hear discussed, not just among the candidates they may choose to
vote for;

"Whereas voters should have an opportunity to hear candidates before they
decide whom they will support;

"Whereas the public will get the benefit of a candidate's views which are
important to the political dialogue even if that candidate does not have
enough support to win;

"Whereas a 5% level of support is based in federal law, mirroring the 5%
level of support required for eligibility for federal campaign funding;

"Whereas while past electoral performance should not be the sole criteria
for guaranteeing debate participation, deference is due to the only national
legislative standard regarding candidate seriousness; and

"Whereas the criteria which should be used to determine participation in
debates should be those which respect the opinion of the entire electorate,
and a criterion based on the opinions of all eligible voters (not just those
deemed by a pollster to be likely to vote) will allow for voices representing
all potential voters to be heard and will recognize the possibility that the
debates can have an important impact on who chooses to go to the polls in
November: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That it is the sense of Congress that any presidential candidate should be
permitted to participate in debates among candidates if (1) at least 5% of
respondents in national public opinion polls of all eligible voters support
the candidate's election for President; or (2) if a majority of respondents in
such polls support the candidate's participation in such debates.

Please ask your member of the House of Representatives to become a co-sponsor
of HCR263. The resolution is currently pending in the Committee on House
Administration. If your member of Congress happens to sit on that Committee,
please ask him or her to hold a hearing on HCR263. Members of the Committee are
Republicans Robert Ney (Ohio), Vernon Ehlers (Michigan), John Mica (Florida),
John Linder (Georgia), John Doolittle (Calif.) and Thomas Reynolds (N.Y.)
Democrats are Steny Hoyer (Maryland), Chaka Fattah (Penn.) and Jim Davis (Fla.).

If the standard for getting into presidential election debates had always
been 5% polling support (or the desire of 50% that the candidate be invited into
the debate), it is likely that these candidates (who were actually excluded)
would have been included in past debates: independent Eugene McCarthy in 1976,
independent John Anderson in 1980, Reform nominee Ross Perot in 1996, and Green
Ralph Nader in 2000. Possibly others would also have qualified. Presidential
general election debates were held in 1960 and all years 1976 through the
present. The Commission on Presidential Debates has existed since 1987.

The last
B.A.N. reported that 2001 (so far) has been the first calendar
year since 1987 that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused all election law cases.
This generalization is still true; the Court turned down two more election cases
during November. One of them had been filed by the state of Utah over
congressional reapportionment; the other concerned initiatives in Oregon. The
Court will probably say on December 3 whether it will hear the Minnesota
Republican Party's case concerning party endorsements of judicial candidates.

On November 14, the U.S. House Administration Committee introduced and passed
HR 3295, which would provide money to states for buying new vote-counting
equipment. It would also set up a federal Election Assistance Commission, to
help the states choose equipment. See http://thomas.loc.gov/and enter "HR3295" to
read the bill.

1. Alabama: Rep. Bob McKee will probably introduce a bill next year to
lower the definition of "party" from a group that polled 20% for any race, to
one that polled 10%.

2. Alaska: Senator Jeannette James will probably introduce a bill next
year to establish a procedure for independent presidential candidates to get on
the ballot. Alaska has never had such a procedure; it only has a procedure for
minor party presidential candidates. In the past, independent presidential
candidates have created artificial parties in Alaska, just to get on the ballot.
In 1992 Ross Perot created the "No Party-Party" and in 1980 John Anderson
created the "Independents for Anderson Party".

3. Arizona: Rep. Christine Weason will probably introduce a bill next
year to delete two pages of the election code which describe the "international
Communistic conspiracy" and conclude by banning the Communist Party from the
ballot. The law was passed in 1961 and declared unconstitutional in 1973, but it
is still in the code.

4. Iowa: minor parties are working together to get a bill introduced
next year to make it possible for voters to register as members of unqualified
parties. Contact either Holly Hart, hhart.AT.blue.weeg.uiowa.edu or Rich
Moroney, rkmoroney.AT.hotmail.com

5. Kentucky: the County Clerks Association is working to enact BR261,
which would authorize them to keep track of how many registered members there
are in each minor party. "BR261" is the designation of a bill that has already
been pre-filed for the 2002 legislative session; the bill number itself isn't
known yet.

6. Michigan: on November 8, the Senate passed SB 173, which would
eliminate the straight-ticket device on general election ballots. The vote was
20-15. The House will take up the bill in December. Minor party candidates
generally do better in the absence of a straight-ticket device.

7. New Hampshire: HB 1158, by Rep. Richard Brewster, would lower the
definition of "party" from a group which polled 4%, to one that polled 3%. HB
1188, also by Brewster, would add "political belief" to the state laws banning
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc. HB 1181, by Rep. Jeb
Bradley, would eliminate numerical requirements for qualified parties, and
provide that any organized group may be a party.

8. North Carolina: the legislature is about to adjourn, without
passing SB 70. The bill would have provided that each congressional district
elect its own presidential elector. North Carolina had been the only state where
it was thought this idea might pass in 2001. Similar bills had been introduced
in a dozen states, early in the year, but none passed. Nebraska and Maine
already use this method.

On November 19, the Peace & Freedom Party filed a lawsuit to require
California to recognize it as a qualified party. Peace & Freedom Party
v Jones, 01-cs-01629, Superior Court, Sacramento.

California law requires a new party to have 86,212 registered members. The
party has over 100,000 registered voters, if inactive voters are counted. But it
has only 66,796, if inactive voters are not counted. Inactive voters are those
who haven't voted recently, and (according to the post office) have moved.
Inactive voters may sign petitions, but the Secretary of State says they don't
count for purposes of computing the number of registered voters.

The party charges that the state's policy is not only unlawful under state
law, but that it violates the federal Voter Registration law. The hearing is
December 4.

Any day now, U.S. District Court Judge Barry Moskowitz, a Clinton appointee,
will make a decision in a lawsuit against a California law which makes it
illegal for anyone to enter a partisan primary if that candidate had been a
member of another qualified party in the preceding year. Van Susteren v
Jones, 01-1777-BTM, San Diego. The case was filed by a Libertarian who
wishes to run for U.S. House.

In the meantime, the Libertarian Party filed another lawsuit on this point,
in federal court in Los Angeles. Olivier v Jones, 01-cv-9902. This
case is stronger, because the party is a co-plaintiff. The party couldn't be a
party in the Van Susteren lawsuit because in that lawsuit, the
candidate (who is not an attorney) is representing himself, and pro se
litigants cannot represent anyone but themselves.

The Initiative & Referendum Institute would like to hear from anyone who
could testify that petitioning in post offices was normal activity back in the
1960's and earlier. The Institute is suing the U.S. Postal Service over a fairly
recent ban on petitioning on post office sidewalks. It would help the case if
there were evidence that petitioning on post office sidewalks has been common
throughout history. So far, the Institute has witnesses who can testify about
the period since 1970, but would like witnesses who know something even earlier.
Contact attorney David Klein at dfklein.AT.swidlaw.com

On November 10, the national rules committee of the Democratic Party voted to
relax a party rule on presidential primaries. The old rule says the party will
not recognize any presidential primary held earlier than March of the election
year (except in New Hampshire). The new rule would permit them as early as the
first Tuesday in February. The full national committee will make a final
decision early in 2002. Republicans already permit February primaries.

A citizen of the U.S. who leaves the U.S. permanently to live in another
country may continue to vote in federal elections, with an absentee ballot from
the state he or she last lived in. This is true even if the citizen has not set
foot in that state, or any other part of the U.S., for decades.

However, if a U.S. citizen moves to any other U.S. territory, he or she loses
the right to vote via absentee ballot from the state of former residence. This
disparity in treatment has lead to many lawsuits, although the policy is always
upheld. On September 6, the 2nd circuit upheld the law. Romeu v
Cohen, 265 F 3d 118. The case had been filed by a New Yorker who had
moved to Puerto Rico. He was denied a New York absentee ballot.

However, this decision has a new twist. Judge Pierre Leval, a Clinton
appointee, said in the decision that if Congress has the power to tell states
that they must let residents of foreign countries (who are U.S. citizens) vote
in state elections for federal office, then Congress also has the power to tell
the states that they must accept votes of their former residents who now live in
U.S. territories.

Even more radically, Leval wrote that Congress could also require the states
to include (in their popular vote for president) votes cast in U.S. territories
for president, on a proportional basis. That is, if U.S. citizens in the
territories cast one million votes for president, and if New York state cast
6.6% of the popular vote for president, then 66,000 territorial presidential
votes should be added into New York's vote totals for each presidential
candidate.

Judge John Walker wrote separately to say he disagreed. Of course, the Leval
idea has no impact on policy, but it is interesting. Leval noted that the
inability of Puerto Ricans to vote for president is the cause of "immense
resentment", and that it causes "annual attacks on the United States in hearings
at the United Nations, at which the U.S. is described as hypocritically
preaching democracy to the world while practicing colonialism at home."

1. California: on October 30, the State Court of Appeals ruled that
San Francisco must permit write-in candidates in city run-off elections.
Edelstein v Fado, A93007, 1st dist. The city charter doesn't say
anything about write-ins, but the city believes that write-ins are implicitly
barred by language that says the top two vote-getters' names shall be placed on
the run-off ballot (if no one got at least 50% in the first election). The city
plans to appeal to the State Supreme Court.

2. Illinois: James Tobin (Libertarian gubernatorial candidate in 1998)
plans to ask for U.S. Supreme Court review of the 7th circuit opinion which said
that state election board members have absolute immunity (as individuals) from
civil lawsuits.

3. Maryland: the state's highest court, which is called the Court of
Appeals, heard oral arguments on November 29 in Green Party of Maryland v
Board of Elections, 27158. The next B.A.N. will
describe the hearing. The issue is whether the state can require qualified
parties to submit candidate petitions for their nominees.

4. Massachusetts: on November 14, federal judge Patty Saris dismissed
a case which had sought to force the legislature to fund the public campaign
law. The voters of the state had passed an initiative providing for public
funding of candidates for state office, but since the legislature refuses to
provide funding, the law is effectively void. The judge said the matter doesn't
belong in federal court. Tolman v Finneran, 01-10756-pbs.

5. New Mexico: on November 6, the State Supreme Court refused to hear
the Green Party's lawsuit on whether it is a major party. Green Party of
New Mexico v Vigil-Giron, 27158. The party will probably file a new
lawsuit in a lower state court. No court has yet heard this case.

6. Oklahoma: there will be a trial this month in Beaver v
Ward, over whether a party can invite all registered voters to vote in
its primary.

7. Ohio: on October 29, the State Court of Appeals again refused to
hear the Libertarian Party's case on whether it is qualified or not. State
ex rel Hartman v Cuyahoga Co. Bd. of Elections, 80276. The party has
appealed to the State Supreme Court. As in the New Mexico case above, no court
has yet heard this case.

8. Oregon: on November 6, the State Supreme Court heard Lehman v
Bradbury, S48771, over whether the term limits law (for state office) is
invalid for breaking the rule that initiatives can only consist of a single
subject. A decision is expected early in 2002.

9. Utah: on November 2, a 3-judge U.S. District Court upheld census
procedures for "imputing" the existence of individuals whose identity is not
known. The vote was 2-1. If a household resolutely refuses to respond to the
census, the Census Bureau assumes that the number of people living in that
household is similar to the number living in neighboring homes. Without this
method, Utah would have gained a seat in Congress at North Carolina's expense.
The state will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Utah v Evans II,
2:01-cv-292G.

10. national: a trial will start on March 4, 2002, in Nader v
Commission on Presidential Debates, 00-12145 (US District Court, Boston).
Nader is suing for damages, because even though he had a valid ticket to sit in
the audience at the October 2000 presidential debate in Boston, he was barred
from his seat. The Commission had said it was afraid the TV cameras would
occasionally focus on Nader.

In another matter involving 2000 presidential debates, on October 11 the U.S.
District Court in Manhattan dismissed the lawsuit Committee for a United
Independent Party v FEC, 00-3476. Judge Barbara Jones held that none of
the plaintiffs had standing. Earlier, the magistrate in this case had ruled that
some of the plaintiffs did have standing. This had been the last case concerning
exclusion from debate participation in last year's election.

The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party, by Michael F.
Holt, was published in June 1999 by Oxford University Press. By now it should be
in most medium-sized libraries. It can be purchased from amazon.com for $38.50
(the original price was $55). It is 1,248 pages, hardcover.

If you ever wondered what U.S. elections would be like, in the complete
absence of government regulation of political parties, this is a book for you.
The Whig Party was formed, for the most part, by people who were opposed to the
very idea of political parties. However, the Democratic Party had become a
well-organized machine, and citizens who were opposed to the policies of the
Democratic Party organized the Whig Party because they saw no other recourse, in
order to defeat the Democrats.

In the years covered by the book, 1835-1861, there were no primary elections,
no government-printed ballots, no restrictions on patronage, no constitutional
restrictions on whether congressional or legislative districts had equal
populations, no popular election for U.S. Senators, and not even a national
uniform election day for U.S. House of Representatives elections. All these
characteristics of the election system placed great power in the hands of party
leaders. Back then, citizens interested in politics were well-advised to become
active in political parties.

Minor parties were influential. Local minor parties (not well known today)
organized to oppose immigration, or the Catholic Church, influenced statewide
elections by their freedom to either place major party nominees on their own
tickets, or run their own candidates. The right of a minor party to engage in
"fusion" also gave considerable power to the Free Soil Party, which opposed
slavery.

The book is a good source of information about the 1854-1855 period, when
there were four major parties (Democratic, Republican, Whig and American).

Major party presidential conventions of the time were riotously
unpredictable. With no presidential primaries, anything could happen. The
account of each of the Whig nominating conventions is gripping.

The author, chair of the History Department at the University of Virginia,
mentions modern ballot access requirements on page 772. He notes, "During the
20th century, American electoral politics has always been organized around the
same two major parties -- Republicans and Democrats -- in large part because the
adoption of state-printed ballots in the 1890s measurably increased the
difficulty of launching a third party to challenge them. Since those major
parties had an automatic slot on the ballots and since the legal hurdles for
other parties to get on those ballots were so high, Republicans and Democrats
effectively monopolized voters' choice...

In the 1850s and for most of the 19th century, however, the rules of the
political game encouraged rather than inhibited the creation of new parties.
Instead of state-printed ballots that gave legally recognized major parties
pride of place and disadvantaged other groups who sought to be listed on them,
political parties printed and distributed their own ballots. As a result, it was
far easier for new parties to challenge the old ones. As Whigs would learn to
their dismay, therefore, politics in the 1850s was not a zero-sum game.
Animosity towards Democrats did not translate automatically into support for
Whigs. Voters had other options... Whigs could not monopolize opposition to
Democrats, and that simple, if easily overlooked, fact more than anything else
explains the death of the Whig Party."

Pennsylvania will require 20,900 signatures for statewide minor party and
independent candidates in 2002. This is the lowest requirement in this state
since 1970. The formula is 2% of the most popular winner's vote for judicial
office (at the election held November 6, 2001). Turnout last month in
Pennsylvania was very low.

On November 6, 2001, Texas voters voted to shrink their own power. They voted
by 62%-38% in favor of a constitutional amendment which lets the legislature
choose presidential electors, if the popular vote for president is so close that
there is uncertainty as to who won. It would seem more logical for Texans to
improve their voting technology, to make sure they can get a speedy and accurate
count.

Michael Italie, Socialist Workers candidate for Mayor of Miami, appeared in a
debate on October 18. Newspapers covered his remarks, which included a defense
of Cuba's government, and criticism of U.S. actions in Afghanistan. Four days
later, Italie's employer, Goodwill Industries, fired him, telling him, "Because
of your views on the U.S. government, you are a disruptive force."

The chart below show the most successful minor party candidates for U.S.
House of Representatives, for each state, for the period 1948 through 2000.
"Minor party" means any party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties.
"Most successful" means the candidate who got the highest percentage of the
vote.

The decade with the most "best" entries is the 1990's, with 28 of the 50 data
points. Tied for second was the 1970's (with 8) and the year 2000 alone (also
with 8). By stark contrast, the 20 years before 1970 only had two "bests".

The Libertarian Party has the most "best" entries, with 18 out of the 50.

Georgia has not had a minor party candidate on the ballot for U.S. House in a
regularly-scheduled election since 1942. This is because of the state's
prohibitive 5% petition requirement. However, in special elections, no petition
is required; the Georgia entry on the chart is a special election.

Year

Party

Candidate & District

Vote

Percentage

Alabama

1970

National Democratic

T. Y. Rogers, 5th

24,863

24.08%

Alaska

1994

Green

Joni Whitmore, at-large

21,277

10.23%

Arizona

1978

Libertarian

Kathleen Cooke, 3rd

19,813

15.05%

Arkansas

1998

Reform

Ralph Forbes, 3rd

36,917

19.26%

California

1990

Libertarian

Joe Shea, 45th

46,068

27.15%

Colorado

2000

Libertarian

Kerry Kantor, 5th

37,719

12.31%

Connecticut

1994

A Connecticut

Barbara Kennelly, 1st

49,691

26.30%

Delaware

1992

Libertarian

Peggy Schmitt, at-large

5,661

2.05%

Florida

1998

Reform

Jack Gargan, 5th

67,147

33.72%

Georgia

1977

Socialist Workers

James Harris, 5th

108

.14%

Hawaii

1988

Libertarian

Lloyd J. Mallan, 2nd

18,006

11.06%

Idaho

1972

American

John Thiebert, 2nd

5,560

3.75%

Illinois

1990

Libertarian

Robert Marshall, 8th

18,529

20.89%

Indiana

1998

Libertarian

Joe Hauptmann, 6th

21,032

11.20%

Iowa

1992

Natural Law

Larry Chroman, 3rd

10,181

3.96%

Kansas

2000

Libertarian

Jack Warner, 1st

25,581

10.66%

Kentucky

2000

Reform

Gatewood Galbraith, 6th

32,436

11.98%

Louisiana

1982

Libertarian

James D. Agnew, 6th

19,354

22.87%

Maine

1992

Green

Jonathan Carter, 2nd

27,526

8.84%

Maryland

2000

Constitution

Brian D. Saunders, 8th

7,017

2.34%

Massachusetts

1988

Communist

Louis R. Godena, 2nd

38,446

19.75%

Michigan

1992

Libertarian

Kenneth L. Proctor, 7th

18,751

12.27%

Minnesota

2000

Independence

Tom Foley, 4th

55,899

20.59%

Mississippi

1998

Libertarian

William Chipman, 2nd

32,533

28.84%

Missouri

1970

American

Gerald G. Fischer, 1st

6,078

9.47%

Montana

1996

Natural Law

Jim Brooks, at-large

17,935

4.43%

Nebraska

1998

Libertarian

Jerry Hickman, 3rd

27,278

15.38%

Nevada

1998

Constitution

Christopher Horne, 2nd

20,738

8.34%

New Hampshire

1996

Libertarian

Gary A. Flanders, 1st

8,176

3.30%

New Jersey

1990

Populist

William Kanengiser, 2nd

13,120

11.84%

New Mexico

1997

Green

Carol A. Miller, 3rd

17,101

16.78%

New York

1948

American Labor

Leo Isacson, 24th

22,697

55.88%

North Carolina

1998

Libertarian

Deborah Eddins, 10th

19,970

14.42%

North Dakota

1968

Taxpayers

R. M. Landsberger, 1st

2,166

1.72%

Ohio

2000

Natural Law

Regina Burch, 3rd

36,516

17.04%

Oklahoma

1996

Natural Law

Karla Condray, 1st

8,996

4.28%

Oregon

1976

U.S. Labor

Martin Simon, 3rd

28,245

15.98%

Pennsylvania

1998

Green

William Belitskus, 5th

17,734

15.13%

Rhode Island

1998

Reform

James C. Sheehan, 1st

6,202

4.47%

South Carolina

1978

American Independent

Harold Hough, 5th

13,251

17.26%

South Dakota

1996

Reform

Stacey Nelson, at-large

10,397

3.22%

Tennessee

2000

Libertarian

Kevin Rowland, 2nd

22,304

10.65%

Texas

1998

Libertarian

Vince Hanke, 11th

15,161

17.57%

Utah

1994

Independent Party

Merrill Cook, 2nd

34,167

18.31%

Vermont

1980

Liberty Union

Peter Diamondstone, at-large

15,218

7.83%

Virginia

1976

American

Warren D. Saunders, 6th

55,115

37.76%

Washington

2000

Green

Joe Szwaja, 7th

52,142

19.62%

West Virginia

1998

Libertarian

Richard Carr, 1st

19,013

15.32%

Wisconsin

1998

U.S. Taxpayers

Timothy Farness, 6th

11,267

7.25%

Wyoming

1994

Libertarian

David Dawson, at-large

10,749

5.48%

This chart has the minor party candidate for U.S. House who received the
highest share of the vote, 1948-2000. See above.

On November 8, the Federal Election Commission unanimously recognized the
Green Party of the U.S. (formerly the Association of State Green Parties) as the
Green Party National Committee. There are now 7 national committees recognized
by the FEC. The others are Democratic, Republican, Constitution, Libertarian,
Natural Law and Reform. Recognition confers no concrete advantage other than the
ability to receive larger contributions than would otherwise be allowed.

On November 6, voters elected members of the Communist, Green, Libertarian,
Natural Law and Prohibition Parties to public office.

Communist: Denise Winebrenner-Edwards, a member of the party's
newspaper editorial board, was re-elected to the city council of Wilkinsburg,
Pennsylvania. Although she was listed on the ballot as a Democrat, her opponent
publicized that she is a leader of the Communist Party.

Green: the party won partisan elections in Connecticut and
Pennsylvania, and non-partisan elections in California, Colorado, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Washington. These included the Mayor of Windber,
Pennsylvania; two city council seats in Minneapolis; two city council seats in
New Haven, Ct.; and a city council seat in Hartford, Ct. http://www.greens.org/elections/has
more detail. At last count, 38 Greens won on November 6.

Libertarian: the party won partisan elections in Pennsylvania and
non-partisan elections in California, Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio,
Virginia and Washington. These included the Mayor of Sumas, Washington; and city
council seats in Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina and Washington. For more
detail, see http://www.lp.org/At last count, 76
Libertarians won on November 6.

On November 9, San Miguel County, Colorado Coroner Robert Dempsey switched
his registration from "Republican" to "Libertarian". Coroner is a partisan
elected position in this county.

Natural Law: Ed Malloy, a party leader, was elected Mayor of
Fairfield, Iowa, defeating an incumbent who had served 28 years.

Prohibition: the party won its first partisan election since 1959. Jim
Hedges was elected Assessor of Thompson Township, Fulton Co., Pa. He was listed
on the ballot as "Republican-Democratic-Prohibition". He had won the major party
nominations by write-ins at this year's primary.

On November 15, Ed Thompson announced that he will run as the Libertarian
candidate for Governor of Wisconsin next year. Thompson is Mayor of Tomah. He is
endorsed by Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota.